Ethics bills fail to move

Friday

Jun 29, 2007 at 12:01 AMJun 29, 2007 at 2:29 PM

CAPITOL BUREAU CENTERPIECE

MAIN BAR/SIDE BAR AT END

The current governor is under federal investigation. His predecessor is headed for prison.

Almost every day, one scandal or another crops up in news reports about state government. And a New York University study recently found that Illinois has the weakest campaign finance laws in the Midwest.

But even with a buffet of ethics bills for lawmakers to choose from, no reforms with any real meat have made their way through both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly this year.

“There is no excuse for it not taking place,” state Comptroller Dan Hynes said about reforms that various lawmakers have pushed since the legislative session began in January.

“Common sense and doing what’s right doesn’t always rule the day in Springfield,” said Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago, who sponsored House Bill 1, which is aimed at ending “pay-to-play politics” in Illinois by banning campaign contributions from most state contractors.

HB1, which Hynes and state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias have endorsed, is among at least eight ethics bills on the table during the legislature’s current session, which has lasted a month past its scheduled adjournment. The various bills would, among other things, forbid state officials, employees and their families from receiving fees related to state contracts, open up ethics investigations and tighten regulations on pension systems.

Some bills focus on only one area, such as “pay to play.” Others are sweeping combinations of reforms in several areas. So far, all have stalled.

Cynthia Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said she was at a recent conference where the discussion turned to ethics laws in Midwestern states.

“In every area, whoever was making the presentation would say, ‘Illinois is the worst,’” she said.

Canary still hopes that some reforms might be enacted before the legislature adjourns. But she, Fritchey, Hynes and others acknowledge they are fighting an uphill battle against a culture that over the years has proven resistant — if not downright antagonistic — to reform.

“It’s always difficult to get people in the system to change the system,” said Mike Lawrence, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University.

“Public trust has been eroded” by the recent scandals, Lawrence added, “but that erosion has not translated at this point to intense public pressure for reform.”

“You’re asking the same people who pass the rules to impose the rules on themselves,” Canary agreed, “and they think they’re all ethical.”

In Illinois, Canary said, resistance to reform is structural. Legislative leadership is highly centralized, and rank-and-file legislators don’t “have the autonomy that people think they have.”

Along with that, Canary said, “there has been a sense in the public that candidates and elected officials and all this free-for-all kind of behavior is just a little good old-fashioned graft that makes our politics more fun than yours.”

It’s not unusual, said Lawrence, who was press secretary for former Gov. Jim Edgar, for the House to pass one version of ethics reforms and the Senate to pass another, with neither agreeing on a final package.

Even though that accomplishes nothing, Hynes said, “the membership of both chambers can leave town saying that they voted on a bill to reform our campaign finance laws. ... Until there is a consensus, we’re just going to continue to see a lack of progress.”

The most recent movement has been on Senate Bill 1305 and House Bill 824, ethics measures that bundle together provisions contained in other legislation.

The House passed an amended version of SB1305 two weeks ago and sent it back to the Senate. HB824 was amended in the Senate in late May, but its sponsor pulled it after a supporter of other ethics legislation called it a “sham,” saying it was so cumbersome, it had no chance to pass.

Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, who made those statements during a Senate committee hearing, said lawmakers from both parties “have a vested interest in not seeing it happen. They get a lot of contributions from the way things are right now.”

Democrats control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, she said.

“They could easily pass that bill,” Radogno said. “There’s no charade to hind behind — that the other party doesn’t want it. So it’s clearly just that the three people at the top have a vested interest in the status quo.”

“What you need is enough public pressure to convince them that it will be politically disadvantageous for them to stay with the status quo,” Lawrence said.

“It is rare when you get that kind of pressure for ethics reform.

“If you had people as outraged in Illinois as they are about their electric rates, you would have reform.”

Dana Heupel can be reached at 788-1518 or dana.heupel@sj-r.com.

LAYER:

Legislation now before the Illinois General Assembly that deals with major ethics reforms includes:

* House Bill 1, which would prohibit business owners with more than $25,000 in state contracts from contributing to the campaigns of officeholders awarding the contracts. It also would require contract bidders to disclose past contributions to the constitutional officer awarding the contracts and would prohibit state officers, employees and their spouses from profiting from state bond deals.

Status: Passed House, now in Senate Rules Committee.

* House Bill 8, which would give the secretary of state’s office investigative powers and the authority to enforce existing lobbyist disclosure laws. It also would require public disclosure of lobbyist activities and billings by lobbyists. Former executive branch officers and employees would have to wait one year before they could lobby their former agencies. And it would require a delay of several months before anyone could leave the General Assembly and lobby on legislative matters.

Status: In House Rules Committee.

* House Bill 824, which would require the state treasurer to post information about state investments on the office’s Web site. A pending amendment would add “pay-to-play” language similar to HB1. It also would add some of Senate Bill 1305’s provisions requiring pension systems to fall under the Illinois Procurement Code and includes language from Senate Bill 157 concerning the transparency of inspector general investigations.

Status: Amended version in Senate Executive Committee. If passed by full Senate, would go to House.

* House Bill 3497, which would limit the amount that any individual, political action committee or political party could contribute to candidates and political party PACs. For instance, an individual could contribute up to $3,000 to statewide candidates and $1,500 to candidates for the General Assembly in each election cycle.

Status: In House Rules Committee.

* Senate Bill 151, which would allow the public to see investigative reports of the executive inspector general and the legislative inspector general, with some sensitive information redacted. It would require the executive inspector general to provide results of all investigations to the Executive Ethics Commission.

Status: In Senate Rules Committee.

* Senate Bill 222, which would create a system of voluntary public financing for Appellate and Supreme Court election campaigns. Participating Supreme Court candidates would receive $750,000 in public financing. Appellate Court candidates would get $250,000. Outside fundraising would be capped, as would personal contributions. Candidates would have to meet various conditions to participate. Public funds would come from a voluntary income tax check-off, an additional $1 collected from court fees and voluntary donations.

Status: Passed Senate, now in House Rules Committee.

* Senate Bill 157, which would require the executive inspector general to provide summaries about newly opened investigations to the Executive Ethics Commission. It would not provide any new public information.

Status: Passed Senate, amended and passed in House, now in Senate Rules Committee.

* Senate Bill 1305, which includes the “pay-to-play” language from HB1. It also would require public retirement systems and pension funds to follow the provisions of the Illinois Procurement Code. It would prohibit consultants and lobbyists from representing investment managers unless they meet certain criteria and would prohibit paying contingency fees to lobbyists of pension boards. It would limit the use of no-bid emergency purchases, require the executive inspector general to inform the Executive Ethics Commission of active investigations and expand the Illinois Whistleblower Act to protect employees of local governments, school districts, community colleges and state universities.

Status: Passed Senate, amended and passed in House, now in Senate Rules Committee.